How is this possible, Mambo? Did your folks not take you to church?
I have always wondered something about the “There is no God” thing. If so, and science is finding the answers. So far it goe like this - Nothing blew up and created all that is and we are simply a by-product of a universal accident. Then what is morality?
It would have to be some left over of socialization maybe? A learned behavior that creates a conscience, we feel bad if we do wrong. But what is wrong? There isn’t any. If we are only a jumble of chemicals walking around then why do we restrain ourselves so much? Why do we punish “criminals”?
If we are nothing after we die, other than food for worms, why not shoot someone in the head just to see what it looks like? Why send people to prison, afterall they were just doing what made them feel good for the short time they have to live. Really, 70 - 80 years tops and most of those would not have much quality.
What is love then? Nothing more than some chemical reactions in the brain. Same as eating large amounts of chocolate. So there is no love, no wrong, no consequences, no meaning, etc.
I realize this is an extreme but if we are only some chemicals wandering around for a few years, on a cosmic scale anyway, then I say that most folks that belive that aren’t living their lives like they belive it. Or they must feel like a minority that is being oppressed and forced to live by a bunch of rules put out by whatever “society” they live in.
Just some things that, logically, would have to follow if we are part of a cosmic accident.
Well, not really logically.
Try this one on for size: If I know that I only have one life and no “spirit” or “soul,” don’t you reckon I’d be inclined to make it the best possible life I can? Of course.
Then, you have a basis for “Golden Rule” morality for non-theists. And a basis for empathy. I won’t harm you, because you only have one life to live. In exchange, I don’t want you to harm me.
And really, what make you so certain that being a result of neurons firing in a brain makes love any less important or valid?
They took me occassionally, but neither of my parents really go to church. My older sister took me, but I do not agree with her view of Christianity (large parts at least). I understood Christianity when I took it in its entirety. I looked in the Bible to understand Christianity, not TBN. I realized that although members of the Church could have a very distorted view of the religion, Christianity itself stands alone to be studied and understood in the Bible. I also understood that Christianity is primarily a participatory religion.
Mambo
Several posters gave you pertinent and clear responses to your OP. Your subsequent posts have shown no sign that you have read or understood those responses. Instead, you simply repeat questions (of offer slight variations on questions) which have already been answered.
Why?
What I can’t get past is that things like empathy, love, etc. have no meaning if they are just simple neurons firing of because that is what we are taught they mean. They mean nothing.
The “do no harm” golden rule doesn’t come into play. What if my best life possible is to torture, mangle, and kill other bio-electric organisms? The likes of Dahmer, Bundy, “the gray man”, Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac, etc. For them the best life possible is to do what other bio-electric organisms call “wrong”. But it isn’t because there is no wrong.
Sure I can feel love for another bio-electric organism but what is it really? Nothing. It’s a learned reaction to stimuli causing specific neurons to fire making me feel “good”. We are like the lab mouse pushing the button that causes the electrode on our head to stimulate our “pleasure” gland, or whatever they connect it to. But what we’ve been taught is love doesn’t exist.
Hardly.
I’ll take the morality of someone who chooses it for themselves as what they believe is right and who they must be to be able to face themselves in the mirror, over the morality of people who take it on out of fear of afterlife punishment every single time. The first is organic, the second artificial. The first is stable and reliable, the second is not.
stoid
So you side with Dahmer and other serial killers who did what they did because they choose what they wanted to for themselves. They had no trouble looking at themselves in the mirror. They enjoyed it emmensly. Stable is it? So an organic bio-electric organism that is only capable of reacting to the stimulis of it’s evironment is more stable than a Christian that is striving to live a life for Christ?
A Christian that continually studies the consistent word of God is more unstable than an organic that will waffle based on whatever society tells it is right?
A person whom believes that there is definetly a right and wrong is more unstable than a thing that decides for itself what is right and wrong?
Interesting view point…
Spiritus Mundi I have read every post. My subsequent questions are for clarification. I’m trying to understand whether atheist are simply non-believers or do they believe in some stable, governing authority (whatever that may be) that governs the universe (encompassing all science, humanity, etc.). The explanations I’ve been reading tend to point to a state where randomness rules. But the universe has definite laws. As knowledge grows we see more and more how the universe is one big machine that works together. Is it mere chance that the universe is woven in this delicate balance?
Glorfindel_31 made a point that I think is relevant to the OP: Where is the stability in atheism?
Atheists are individuals. The only categorical similarity they necessarily display is lack of belief in a God.
Atheism has no dogma. You are looking for anwers which do not exist. You might as well ask whether Protestants prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream.
Then I would submit that you have not been reading carefully or completely.
How should I know? Chance is sufficient to account for what we presently understand about teh Universe. That statement is not the same as declaring that “randomness rules”, BTW.
Was that Glorfindel_31’s point? I thought his point was that atheists could not find a reason for morality because Glorfindel_31 thinks material events do not matter. I can’t say that I thought much of that point.
The answer to the question you raise is: wherever an atheist finds it. Absent God, a person may look at the world and decide for themselves whether “stability” is present.
Hold the phone …
There is plenty of stability in atheism. I said somewhere (maybe a different thread) that my religion is hard to define, but if I had to pin down a basis for it I would point to physics. I trust the laws of physics. They have been proven to me time and again. Other things I put my faith in. For example, I try to live a moral life, I have faith that others do to. Just in case, I watch my back.
As for Stoid and Glorfindel’s little dust up, I’m not sure how it got that convaluted, but I don’t think either of you are expressing yourselves clearly. Or I’m just not getting it.
Here’s how I see the Dahmers of the world. Do I “take” him over a Christian who “gives his life to Christ”. No, I don’t. And I’ll tell you why. I’m not too keen on people who rape, murder and eat other people. Call me kooky, but that’s just a bit of my own little “moral code”.
If I read Stoid right, I think the point is, people who make up their own minds are preferable to those who merely bray the party line.
I’m not saying that Christianity hasn’t put forth some good ideas. I kind of like “Thou shall not kill.” But others are downright goofy. “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife”? Hey, if she’s got big tits, I’ll “covet” whatever I want! But I won’t act on my covetousiocitude (whatever), because, again, my moral code is similar to this message boards - Rule 1 - Don’t be a jerk.
That’s pretty much it. I don’t trust a morality that is imposed by fear. I prefer a moral code that springs from a desire to be good for its own sake, not to appease Daddy or God or whomever.
stoid
No, it isn’t a belief system.
No, by believing anything, we have a belief. Atheism isn’t a system.
No, again, that’s a belief that ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable. Also not a “belief system,” merely a belief.
Why are all of you working so hard to prove that atheists have beliefs? Of course we have beliefs. I, for example, believe that Christians are funny.
Science is a system that tries very hard not to rely on faith and dogma. Yes, it requires a bit of faith, in some cases, but it constantly seeks to find faults in its own system of “beliefs.” It relies on results to support its findings, and is always in the process of changing itself. So if science is a belief system, it is still far from being a religion, which seems to be what you’re implying.
But what about science, of which some argeists are quite dogmatic about? I ought to know; I’m a scientist myself and I had my share of debates with them.
I meant “some atheists are quite dogmatic about”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Glorfindel_31 *
So you side with Dahmer and other serial killers who did what they did because they choose what they wanted to for themselves.
This has nothing to whatsoever to do with why people become atheists. No one SIDES with the serial killer of the world. I will, however, point out that many MANY mass murderers have use the bible as justification. Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and even your favorite, Jeffrey Dahmer. I suspect just as many killers are theists as atheists. Perhaps more. There is one book that has been used to justify more murders than any other. Can you name it?
They had no trouble looking at themselves in the mirror. They enjoyed it emmensly. Stable is it? So an organic bio-electric organism that is only capable of reacting to the stimulis of it’s evironment is more stable than a Christian that is striving to live a life for Christ?
You can use the Bible to justify anything. It is no more stable a determinant of behavior than anything else. In fact, my own moral code WITHOUT taking biblical morality into account, is quite firm. My values are immovable. Whereas simply looking from the old testament to the new will confuse any poor soul.
**A Christian that continually studies the consistent word of God is more unstable than an organic that will waffle based on whatever society tells it is right? **
a) Word of god = not consistent, see above.
b) Sometimes flexibility is called for. For example, we used to find it morally acceptable to have slaves.
A person whom believes that there is definetly a right and wrong is more unstable than a thing that decides for itself what is right and wrong?
Just because I get my ideas of right and wrong from somewhere other than the bible…for instance, common sense and my own conscious and values I was brought up with…doesn’t mean they’re inferior or less stable. Just because I’ve changed my mind regarding certain rights and wrongs over my life time so far (i.e., racism) that doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with values.
-L
Why don’t atheists prefer murderers who have made up their own moral code to christians who haven’t? Um, because we atheists don’t want to be murdered.
But what Glorfindel is asking is why we atheists care if we are murdered or not. If it is all chemicals, then what does it matter if Jeffery Dahmer eats us or not? Well, let me explain.
See, it really doesn’t matter to the universe whether we humans exist, or have happy lives, or reproduce, or whatever. But it matters to us. And why is that? Because we have evolved that way. Creatures that don’t care whether they are killed don’t reproduce, and are not represented in the next generation. Creatures that do care wether they are killed try to avoid being killed, and therefore have more offspring.
So, after millions of years of evolution, every life form has a survival instinct hard-wired into it. Humans are no exception. And part of our method of survival is living in groups. So, humans that can succesfully live in groups have an evolutionary advantage over those that cannot. And so, we tend to dislike people who can’t get along with other people, since they interfere with our survival. And we only care about survival because we have evolved to, not because there is some univeral cosmic reason.
So there you have the source of our morality. There is no absolute basis for it, but it exists nonetheless.
Aside from the “word of God” being demonstrably inconsistent, and assuming that you meant “organism,” have you never considered that most Christians trust it simply because society, or a large segment of society, tells them that it is right?
Glorfindel:
I’m sorry you feel that way. I disagree. There is nothing simple about neurons firing, and there is nothing simple about love nor empathy.
Capacitor:
What about it? Some Christians are quite dogmatic about science too. And? Trusting in science, even blindly, does not a religion make. And it certainly has nothing to do with atheism. Some atheists are right handed too–is there causation?
It strikes me that the fundamental thought underlying the thread is redundant. This is because either[list=A][li]There is a God. In this case some basic questions are answered, some aren’t but the fact remains that He is there and that’s that.[/li]
or
[li]There is NO God. In this case handwringing about what “morality” is and so forth is irrelevent because it does not change one jot that there is no God.[/list=A]Morality doesn’t prove God’s existance. Order doesn’t prove God’s existance. The fact that you really really want GOd to exist otherwise what’s the point? - definitely doesn’t prove God’s existance. You’ve got your cause and effect mixed up.[/li]
Atheists believe (B), or at least don’t believe in (A). They do this because nobody has ever convinced them that (A) is true. The fact that there is no God to tell them what to do any more is irrelevant to the fact that they don’t believe in (A), because they don’t believe in (A) and that’s that. Nothing “replaces” (A). Nothing is offered as an alternative for not believing in (A). Why should there be? Are you offered an alternative for not believing in the tooth fairy? Are you offered a replacement for the fairies that don’t actually live at the bottom of your garden? But the fairies were so pretty - surely you must have some alternative to believe in? No? Well then.
Mambo - please give me some indication that you understand that IF GOD DOESN’T EXIST THEN HE DOESN’T EXIST and that’s that - no alternatives, no replacements, nothing else to believe, nada. No amount of wishful thinking is going to replace Him. If you don’t understand that after 2 pages of extremely cognitive responses then frankly I’m not sure what else can be said.
pan